From: stillson@ashd.com (Chris Stillson)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 00:30:06 +0800
To: Jeff Barber <stillson@ashd.com (Chris Stillson)
Subject: Re: WWW User authentication
Message-ID: <199604112221.RAA18588@bach.ashd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>> >Well, if you use SSL, it's useable by a "large number of browsers" since
>> >Netscape has such a large share of the browser market.  And then all of
>> >the things you're doing w.r.t. authentication are hidden, at least from
>> >casual eavesdroppers and others too if you use more than the 40-bit option.
>> >There's really no other choice to reach a large number of browsers.
>
>> Once again mister barber is being an idiot.  netscape is not a "large number
>> of browsers".
>
I have to apologize for this.  Me having a bad day is not a good reason to
call Jeff Barber an idiot.  My aplogies.



>>                He is right that ssl is probably a good way to go. (shttp would
>> be better :) )
>
>SHTTP might be better if it didn't have to be "useable by a large number
>of browsers" -- since Netscape doesn't support SHTTP.  (I'm sorry that you
>apparently find Netscape's success so frustrating, but it is a fact.)


Again, I probably went a little overboard.  I just get worried when any one
company has as much control over the technology (in this case net based
encryption) as netscape has.  That, and I used to work for one of their
competitors and I get tired of people telling me that netscape is the only
company out there.  

Sorry to be a jerk